this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
13 points (93.3% liked)

United Kingdom

4081 readers
84 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Opening their case, the lawyers said the Court of Appeal had been wrong to block the UK government's plan to remove some asylum seekers to Rwanda amid fears about its record.

Under the policy, anyone who comes to the UK without authorisation from a safe country and seeks asylum - in practice meaning people crossing the English Channel in small boats from France - can be blocked from making a claim for protection and sent to Rwanda instead.

In June 2022, the European Court of Human Rights blocked the departure of the first flight, saying that British judges needed time to fully consider whether the plan was legal.

The government's lawyers have said that in June the Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that Rwanda's asylum system was so flawed it could send migrants back to their home countries, where they could be mistreated.

Sir James Eadie KC, for the home secretary, told the Supreme Court there was "every reason to conclude" that Rwanda would want the arrangements to work.

Sir James said that while critics of the Rwanda plan had warned about the country's human rights record, past incidents were not legally relevant.


The original article contains 596 words, the summary contains 195 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!